A Bit More About Defamation

I wrote previously about that a$$hat Kurt Schleichter (sp?). This is a small piece of the quote from my earlier piece:

You find the Twitter trolls who circulated these lies and then find out their paymasters. And you find the blue check psychos demanding these kids be murdered for their race, religion, gender, and the baffled smile, in the face of the abuse that these liars hid from their audience.

Upon further review, I am kind of inclined to agree with this. I would love to find the Twitter trolls who circulate lies; I would love to find their paymasters. I believe Mr. Schleichter and I have differing views as to who the trolls are and who is paying them (he likely believes George Soros is behind this somewhere; I tend to believe that the Russian troll farms are the problem).

I would also like to expose anyone who believes that people should "be murdered for their race, religion, gender" and so on and so forth, including for "the baffled smile." I do wonder, however, whether Mr. Schleichter believes that "all" people in America (or the world) should be afforded this right or only privileged white kids.

Should young black men be murdered by the police simply because of their race? Simply because the police believe that the neighborhood is dangerous and black people are violent? I don't think so. How does Mr. Schleichter feel?

I'd say the same about religion. Where does Mr. Schleichter stand on Individual 1's "complete shutdown of Muslims coming into this country"? Does he believe that invading Muslim countries is OK because they are lesser beings? I don't know; I'm simply posing questions.

How about gender? Where does Mr. Schleichter come down on a woman's right not to be groped by entitled men? What about women who are drug into bedrooms by drunken teenage boys and groped? Is that just "boys will be boys" or is that an actual problem? What say Mr. Schleichter and his compatriots over at Town Hall?

As to the "baffled smile," how many young people of color are "stopped and frisked" because they "look suspicious" in some sort of undefined way (i.e. they are people of color).

I think one of the big problems in our society is that people selectively empathize with others. Mr. Schleichter saw the MAGA teen and immediately empathized with him, never stopping to think about the level of disrespect he was showing to the elderly man participating in the native peoples' march. So many people jumped to Brett Kavanaugh's defense because they empathized with him, not with his accusers. People say "Blue Lives Matter" because they empathize with police officers at the expense of the young people of color who are arrested and killed at a disproportionate rate.

I guess now I'm just rambling. Some people have accused me of being so liberal I can't take my own side in an argument. So it goes.

Snowflakes and Safe Spaces

How many times have I read the same old op-ed about these ultra-liberal campuses that are "suppressing free speech" by not allowing alt-right nationalists (i.e. Nazis) speak on their campuses? I mean, if you've read anything by Bari Weiss, Brett Stephens, Megan McCardle, et al in the last four years, I'm sure you're familiar with the general outlines of the argument:

"Look at these little snowflake college kids that are so insecure in their own opinions and beliefs that they can't stand to hear opposing viewpoints. This threatens all of our liberty!"

The argument is true to a certain degree, but I note that it is never used to engage the broader suppressions of free speech that are going on right in front of us.

Well, TableTopJoe is here to help try to even things out! I give you that manliest of manly things, that would never ever be some little snowflake who needs a safe space, the National Football League.

NFL owners have unanimously approved a new national anthem policy that requires players to stand if they are on the field during the performance but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they prefer, it was announced Wednesday.

So, to be clear, when a private liberal arts college refuses to host a white nationalist as a speaker, this is an intolerable erosion of our freedoms because all political statements apparently have value. However, when wealthy white football team owners decide that they are going to force their (largely black) football players to either make the "preferred" political statement or no statement at all, well that is just patriotism, y'see!

A few more points:

• The NFL is a private organization and is not bound by the First Amendment.
• That the NFL is not bound by the First Amendment does not mean that it is not bound by both common decency and the preferences of its customers (i.e. fans).
• Standing for the National Anthem is every bit as much of a political statement as kneeling for the National Anthem.
• By telling players they are allowed to make one political statement (STAND) and not another (kneel), the NFL has inserted itself into a political controversy.
• The NFL has indicated that protesting the unwarranted killing of unarmed black men in their players' communities is a sanctionable offense, whereas standing for the Anthem and making THAT political statement is A-OK.

The NFL and its fans: a bunch of delicate little snowflakes that need their safe spaces. Who knew?

On Respect

I was watching the Olympic Games tonight, and was quite proud to see Shaun White win the gold medal. I was not aware of his recent injuries, etc. However, I couldn't help but notice thereafter, that Mr. White carried the American flag over his back for a moment, and then drug it along the ground, occasionally stepping on it.

I am not one who is given to empty sentimentality, and this is an action from which I would personally refrain. I do wonder, however, whether the Tweeter in Chief will have something to say about this. This was, by any metric, a casual disregard for the traditional understanding of "respect" for an American symbol. I don't believe that Mr. White meant to make any sort of a protest against America and I certainly don't dispute his right to do so if that was his intent. I just wonder whether this will engender the type of controversy that Colin Kapernick did.

It's not like Shaun White knelt during the National Anthem to protest the killing of people who looked like him by people who didn't in the name of the government that purported to represent him.

On Las Vegas

Pardon me as I rant here.

This happens too often, and I am not gullible enough to believe that anything will change because of it. This is the society that we have built, one with more mass shootings than any other society in the history of mankind.

This is the society that we have built, where a country music concert becomes a killing field.

This is the society that we have built, where a black man shooting up a crowd of people is a "thug," an Arabic man doing so is a "terrorist," and a white man doing so is "crazy."

This is the society that we have built, where my initial fear after the Las Vegas shootings was that they were done by someone named Yusef Mohhamed and that crackdowns on our civil liberties would surely follow. What happened to being a nation of laws? What happened to judging the action, not the actor?

This is the society we have built, where people piously offer their "prayers" after each mass shooting and then refuse to do, literally, anything else about the problem. That strikes me as the person who apologizes for wronging you and has precisely zero plans to do anything to avoid wronging you again in the future.

We have seen the problem, and the problem is us. We will all have to answer to our maker for this someday. I don't know how I will explain myself other than to look at my shoes in shame.

Happy Taco Tuesday. Hug your kids.

UPDATE: I wish I had good news. However, upon further review, I don't.

The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.

. . . . .

A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75 percent in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.

This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.

Taking a Knee

I will, cautiously, wade into the treacherous waters surrounding NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with it.

These players are not wiping their rear with the flag, nor are they giving it the finger, nor are they spitting on it. They are solemnly taking a knee or raising a fist to demonstrate that while they revere this country, they and others of their skin color have dealt with (and continue to deal with) grave injustice that cannot be ignored. That they make millions of dollars to play a kid's game is of no moment; they rightly recognize that all the money in the world can't buy them justice, nor can that money buy justice for their families, who generally are not multi-millionaire athletes.

This is in spirit with similar protests nearly fifty (50) years ago:

Patriotism.

I do note that some haughtily claim that this is a disgrace when soldiers are fighting and dying overseas while making a tiny fraction of the income that NFL players make. While this argument is duly noted, its relevance escapes me. Does the injustice suffered by the black community somehow count less when there is a war going on? Did the black NFL players have some sort of collective conversation wherein they decided to trade their dignity for soldiers' blood? If the soldiers made more money, would the protest then be OK? What about if the players were amateurs or poorly paid? Would their protest then be more acceptable? Is this really that disrespectful?

Quiet Strength

My point is that I am proud, PROUD, to call myself a fellow citizen of these young men who had the courage (and temerity) to stand (or sit, or kneel, or raise a fist) for their convictions. That is what this country is about. If free speech means anything, it has to apply to just and noble causes such as this at least in the same measure that it applies to those "very fine people" in Charlottesville, VA, and elsewhere who march and chant for their abhorrent causes.

I note the disparity between protests such as the NFL and the 1968 protest, pictured above, and those shown below from more recent times:

I always like to remind myself that my opinions and reactions to all things will someday be judged by St. Peter at the Gate. When my turn comes, I hope that I can say that I supported those who stood for justice and opposed those who stood against it. Don't we all want to wind up on the right side of history?

UPDATE: I just saw this screed in the Washington Times today. A snippet:

Don’t kneel when my anthem is played.  Too many people died for that flag.  You are free to protest but not then.  I am free to not watch, or pay to watch you play if you do that.  The NFL should make it a rule that you stand for the national anthem.  There is no free speech to disobey a private employer on private property.  This would solve the problem immediately.

The NFL has deeply offended most of America.  They will pay an economic and reputational price, as they should.

If a player is free to protest, then he is free to protest. You, Mr. Conservative Columnist, have no right to tell him when he can and can't protest. I also find it interesting that he states simultaneously that (a) too many people died for rights in America, but (b) NFL players don't have the right to protest. Also, the league should make a rule governing the protests, the right to which many Americans died to preserve.

I also can't help but notice his comment about "private property." Citizens of Indianapolis and surrounding counties: You paid for Lucas Oil Stadium. Do you, having paid for the stadium, consider it to be the private property of someone else?

Finally, if Mr. Ass-Hat Conservative Columnist believes that the NFL will pay an economic and reputational price, and it doesn't, what then? Can we disregard him as full of it? Is that proof positive that this blowhard doesn't know what he's talking about and should forever thereafter be disregarded?

Disturbing and Enlightening

I will save my reader(s) from any diatribe I have about the current controversy surrounding monuments to those who would (and did) commit treason in defense of human bondage figures from the Confederate States of America. I do, however, have some thoughts on a disturbing story I heard on NPR on my way home from work a few days ago. Regrettably I do not recall the precise details, so please excuse the broad-strokes nature of this post.

The interviewee was a jazz musician, who was the son of a jazz musician. The father had been part of the old Indiana Ave. jazz scene that included such notables as Wes Montgomery, Freddie Hubbard, J.J. Johnson, Slide Hampton, and David Baker (I had the wonderful opportunity to take his History of Jazz class while I was at IU and have been grateful for the opportunity ever since). Regrettably, I cannot recall the name of the father or his son, who was being interviewed on NPR.

What really struck me about the interview, however, was the discussion of this guy leaving Indianapolis at a young age to move to California, probably in the early 1960s. Why did he move?

Racism and fear. Full stop.

Now, let me preface the following with a warning that it deals with race in a way that makes some uncomfortable. For that, I apologize.

This guest on NPR told a story of growing up in Indianapolis. His father was a successful jazz musician, and the majority of his family lived here. His uncle built, with his own blood, sweat, and tears, his dream home in Speedway, Indiana. I can fully understand the allure of Speedway. It attracted me.

Unfortunately, the NPR guest was over at his uncle's home one evening when a large cross was erected in their front yard and set ablaze.

Right here in Speedway.

Now, I was not alive at the time. I have never done something like that, and I never will. Nonetheless, it made me ashamed. Ashamed of our past experience with race. Ashamed that after all of these years, may of us would rather pretend that the problem of racism was solved with the Civil War and MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. Ashamed that we pretend that racism is behind us, was just a small but shameful segment of our history.

Having lived briefly in Canada, I can assure my fellow citizens that slavery and Jim Crow leave a long tail of legacy behind them. Race is a considerably "bigger deal" here in America than it is in Canada, and I assure you there are plenty of minorities in Canada.

I propose that we, as a people, are better than our past and present acts and omissions on race would lead one to believe. I believe that the people of Speedway, black, white, yellow, brown, orange, purple (I guess?), etc., are MORE than simply "races." We are more than our collective heritage. We can do our part to move this world in the right direction.

Speedway could locate the sites of past injustices and place monuments to them; not to celebrate the injustice but to remind ourselves that it happened, to remind ourselves that it shouldn't happen and that it mustn't happen. To remind ourselves that our children and grandchildren (whether they've been born already, or will be in the future) are watching and judging. And they're right to judge.

Don't ever forget that "The Greatest Generation" that fought and defeated the Nazis could have been known as the generation that capitulated. The Baby Boomers could have been the generation that perpetuated Jim Crow. Our Founding Fathers could have remained a bunch of rich aristocrats who weren't willing to upset the lives of (relative) luxury they lived and simply decided to "go along to get along" with the King.

History is watching, and we can, for generations, be known either as the people who made our corner of the world better, made it worse, or perpetuated the same problems without doing anything to fix any of them.

The choice is ours.

Carb Day Concert

I used to be a high school teacher. Almost without fail, Carb Day was on either the last day of school or near it, right in finals week. Of all the days of the school year, these are some of the few that are nearly impossible to get off. As a result, I have never attended a Carb Day event.

With that said, I can hear the concert loud and clear from my front yard now, and I no longer teach. I would love to go, but Journey last year just didn't excite me.

Speedway needs a ROCK band to play Carb Day. ZZ Top? Metallica? AC/DC?

A guy can dream, can't he?